Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label
draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label
Network Working Group A. Farrel
Internet Draft D. King
Updates: 3471, 6205 (if approved) Old Dog Consulting
Intended Status: Standards Track Y. Li
Expires: 10 March 2016 Nanjing University
F. Zhang
Huawei Technologies
10 September 2015
Generalized Labels for the Flexi-Grid in
Lambda Switch Capable (LSC) Label Switching Routers
draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label-05.txt
Abstract
GMPLS supports the description of optical switching by identifying
entries in fixed lists of switchable wavelengths (called grids)
through the encoding of lambda labels. Work within the ITU-T Study
Group 15 has defined a finer granularity grid, and the facility to
flexibly select different widths of spectrum from the grid. This
document defines a new GMPLS lambda label format to support this
flexi-grid.
This document updates RFC 3471 and RFC 6205 by introducing a new
label format.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
Farrel et al. Expires March 2016 [Page 1]
draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label-05.txt September 2015
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Overview of Flexi-Grid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Composite Labels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Fixed Grid Lambda Label Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Flexi-Grid Label Format and Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1 Flexi-Grid Label Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Considerations of Bandwidth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.3. Composite Labels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Manageability and Backward Compatibility Considerations . . . 8
5.1. Control Plane Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.1. Centre Tecnologic de Telecomunicacions de Catalunya (CTTC) . 10
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.1. Grid Subregistry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.2. DWDM Channel Spacing Subregistry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Appendix A. Flexi-Grid Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Contributors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Farrel et al. Expires March 2016 [Page 2]
draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label-05.txt September 2015
1. Introduction
As described in [RFC3945], GMPLS extends MPLS from supporting only
Packet Switch Capable (PSC) interfaces and switching, to also support
four new classes of interfaces and switching that include Lambda
Switch Capable (LSC).
A functional description of the extensions to MPLS signaling needed
to support this new class of interface and switching is provided in
[RFC3471].
Section 3.2.1.1 of [RFC3471] states that wavelength labels "only have
significance between two neighbors": global wavelength semantics are
not considered. [RFC6205] defines a standard lambda label format
that has a global semantic and which is compliant with both the Dense
Wavelength Division Multiplexing (DWDM) grid [G.694.1] and the Coarse
Wavelength Division Multiplexing (CWDM) grid [G.694.2]. The terms
DWDM and CWDM are defined in [G.671].
A flexible grid network selects its data channels as arbitrarily
assigned pieces of the spectrum. Mixed bitrate transmission systems
can allocate their channels with different spectral bandwidths so
that the channels can be optimized for the bandwidth requirements of
the particular bit rate and modulation scheme of the individual
channels. This technique is regarded as a promising way to improve
the network utilization efficiency and fundamentally reduce the cost
of the core network.
The "flexi-grid" has been developed within the ITU-T Study Group 15
to allow selection and switching of pieces of the optical spectrum
chosen flexibly from a fine granularity grid of wavelengths with
variable spectral bandwidth [G.694.1].
[RFC3471] defines several basic label types including the lambda
label. [RFC3471] states that wavelength labels "only have
significance between two neighbors" (Section 3.2.1.1); global
wavelength semantics are not considered. In order to facilitate
interoperability in a network composed of LSC equipment, [RFC6205]
defines a standard lambda label format and is designated an update of
RFC 3471.
This document continues the theme of defining global semantics for
the wavelength label by adding support for the flexi-grid. Thus,
this document updates [RFC6205] and [RFC3471].
This document relies on [G.694.1] for the definition of the optical
data plane and does not make any updates to the work of the ITU-T.
Farrel et al. Expires March 2016 [Page 3]
draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label-05.txt September 2015
1.1. Conventions Used in This Document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
2. Overview of Flexi-Grid
[G.694.1] defines DWDM fixed grids. The latest version of that
document extends the DWDM fixed grids to add support for flexible
grids. The basis of the work is to allow a data channel to be formed
from an abstract grid anchored at 193.1 THz and selected on a channel
spacing of 6.25 GHz with a variable slot width measured in units of
12.5 GHz. Individual allocations may be made on this basis from
anywhere in the spectrum, subject to allocations not overlapping.
[G.694.1] provides clear guidance on the support of flexible grid by
implementations in Section 2 of Appendix I:
The flexible DWDM grid defined in clause 7 has a nominal central
frequency granularity of 6.25 GHz and a slot width granularity of
12.5 GHz. However, devices or applications that make use of the
flexible grid may not have to be capable of supporting every
possible slot width or position. In other words, applications may
be defined where only a subset of the possible slot widths and
positions are required to be supported.
For example, an application could be defined where the nominal
central frequency granularity is 12.5 GHz (by only requiring
values of n that are even) and that only requires slot widths as a
multiple of 25 GHz (by only requiring values of m that are even).
Some additional background on the use of GMPLS for flexible grids
can be found in [FLEXFWRK].
2.1. Composite Labels
It is possible to construct an end-to-end connection as a composite
of more than one flexi-grid slot. The mechanism used in GMPLS is
similar to that used to support inverse multiplexing familiar in
time-division multiplexing (TDM) and optical transport networks
(OTN). The slots in the set could potentially be contiguous or non-
contiguous (only as allowed by the definitions of the data plane) and
could be signaled as a single LSP or constructed from a group of
LSPs. For more details, refer to Section 4.3.
How the signal is carried across such groups of channels is out of
scope for this document.
Farrel et al. Expires March 2016 [Page 4]
draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label-05.txt September 2015
3. Fixed Grid Lambda Label Encoding
[RFC6205] defines an encoding for a global semantic for a DWDM label
based on four fields:
- Grid: used to select which grid the lambda is selected from.
Values defined in [RFC6205] identify DWDM [G.694.1] and CWDM
[G.694.2].
- C.S. (Channel Spacing): used to indicate the channel spacing.
[RFC6205] defines values to represent spacing of 100, 50, 25 and
12.5 GHz.
- Identifier: a local-scoped integer used to distinguish different
lasers (in one node) when they can transmit the same frequency
lambda.
- n: a two's-complement integer to take a positive, negative, or zero
value. This value is used to compute the frequency as defined in
[RFC6205] and based on [G.694.1]. The use of n is repeated here
for ease of reading the rest of this document: in case of
discrepancy, the definition in [RFC6205] is normative.
Frequency (THz) = 193.1 THz + n * frequency granularity (THz)
where the nominal central frequency granularity for the flexible
grid is 0.00625 THz
4. Flexi-Grid Label Format and Values
4.1 Flexi-Grid Label Encoding
This document defines a generalized label encoding for use in flexi-
grid systems. As with the other GMPLS lambda label formats defined
in [RFC3471] and [RFC6205], the use of this label format is known a
priori. That is, since the interpretation of all lambda labels is
determined hop-by-hop, the use of this label format requires that all
nodes on the path expect to use this label format.
For convenience, however, the label format is modeled on the fixed
grid label defined in [RFC6205] and briefly described in Section 3.
Figure 1 shows the format of the Flexi-Grid Label. It is a 64 bit
label.
Farrel et al. Expires March 2016 [Page 5]
draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label-05.txt September 2015
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Grid | C.S. | Identifier | n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| m | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1 : The Flexi-Grid Label Encoding
This document defines a new Grid value to supplement those in
[RFC6205]:
+----------+---------+
| Grid | Value |
+----------+---------+
|ITU-T Flex| 3 |
+----------+---------+
Within the fixed grid network, the C.S. value is used to represent
the channel spacing, as the spacing between adjacent channels is
constant. For the flexible grid situation, this field is used to
represent the nominal central frequency granularity.
This document defines a new C.S. value to supplement those in
[RFC6205]:
+----------+---------+
| C.S(GHz) | Value |
+----------+---------+
| 6.25 | 5 |
+----------+---------+
The meaning of the Identifier field is maintained from [RFC6205] (see
also Section 3).
The meaning of n is maintained from [RFC6205] (see also Section 3).
The m field is used to identify the slot width according to the
formula given in [G.694.1] as follows. It is a 16 bit integer value
encoded in line format.
Slot Width (GHz) = 12.5 GHz * m
The Reserved field MUST be set to zero on transmission and SHOULD be
ignored on receipt.
An implementation that wishes to use the flexi-grid label encoding
Farrel et al. Expires March 2016 [Page 6]
draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label-05.txt September 2015
MUST follow the procedures of [RFC3473] and of [RFC3471] as updated
by [RFC6205]. It MUST set Grid to 3 and C.S. to 5. It MUST set
Identifier to indicate the local identifier of the laser in use as
described in [RFC6205]. It MUST also set n according to the formula
in Section 3 (inherited unchanged from [RFC6205]). Finally, the
implementation MUST set m as described in the formula stated above.
4.2. Considerations of Bandwidth
There is some overlap between the concepts of bandwidth and label in
many GMPLS-based systems where a label indicates a physical switching
resource. This overlap is increased in a flexi-grid system where a
label value indicates the slot width and so affects the bandwidth
supported by an LSP. Thus the 'm' parameter is both a property of
the label (i.e., it helps define exactly what is switched) and of the
bandwidth.
In GMPLS signaling [RFC3473], bandwidth is requested in the TSpec
object and confirmed in the Flowspec object. The 'm' parameter that
is a parameter of the GMPLS flexi-grid label as described above, is
also a parameter of the flexi-grid TSpec and Flowspec as described in
[FLEXRSVP].
4.3. Composite Labels
The creation of a composite of multiple channels to support inverse
multiplexing is already supported in GMPLS for TDM and OTN [RFC4606],
[RFC6344], [RFC7139]. The mechanism used for flexi-grid is similar.
To signal an LSP that uses multiple flexi-grid slots a "compound
label" is constructed. That is, the LABEL object is constructed from
a concatenation of the 64-bit Flexi-Grid Labels shown in Figure 1.
The number of elements in the label can be determined from the length
of the LABEL object. The resulting LABEL object is shown in Figure
2 including the object header that is not normally shown in
diagrammatic representations of RSVP-TE objects. Note that r is the
count of component labels, and this is backward compatible with the
label shown in Figure 1 where the value of r is 1.
The order of component labels MUST be presented in increasing order
of the value n. Implementations MUST NOT infer anything about the
encoding of a signal into the set of slots represented by a compound
label from the label itself. Information about the encoding MAY be
handled in other fields in signaling messages or through an out of
band system, but such considerations are out of the scope of this
document.
Farrel et al. Expires March 2016 [Page 7]
draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label-05.txt September 2015
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Object Length (4 + 8r) | Class-Num (16)| C-Type (2) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Grid | C.S. | Identifier | n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| m | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Grid | C.S. | Identifier | n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| m | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2 : A Compound Label for Virtual Concatenation
Note that specific rules must be applied as follows:
- Grid MUST show "ITU-T Flex" value 3 in each component label.
- C.S. MUST have the same value in each component label.
- Identifier in each component label may identify different physical
equipment.
- Values of n and m in each component label define the slots that
are concatenated.
At the time of writing [G.694.1] only supports only groupings of
adjacent slots (i.e., without intervening unused slots that could be
used for other purposes) of identical width (same value of m), and
the component slots must be in increasing order of frequency (i.e.,
increasing order of the value n). The mechanism defined here MUST
NOT be used for other forms of grouping unless and until those forms
are defined and documented in Recommendations published by the ITU-T.
Note further that while the mechanism described here naturally means
that all component channels are corouted, a composite channel can
also be achieved by constructing individual LSPs from single flexi-
grid slots and managing those LSPs as a group. A mechanism for
achieving this for TDM is described in [RFC6344], but is out of scope
for discussion in this document because the labels used are normal,
single slot labels and require no additional definitions.
5. Manageability and Backward Compatibility Considerations
This section briefly considers issues of manageability and backward
compatibility.
Farrel et al. Expires March 2016 [Page 8]
draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label-05.txt September 2015
5.1. Control Plane Backward Compatibility
Labels are carried in two ways in GMPLS: for immediate use on the
next hop and for use at remote hops.
It is an assumption of GMPLS that both ends of a link know what
label types are supported and only use appropriate label types. If
a label of an unknown type is received it will be processed as if it
was of a known type since the Label Object and similar label-carrying
objects do not contain a type identifier. Thus the introduction of a
flexi-grid label in this document does not change the compatibility
issues and a legacy node that does not support the new flexi-grid
label should not expect to receive or handle such labels. If one is
incorrectly used in communication with a legacy node it will attempt
to process it as an expected label type with a potentially poor
outcome.
It is possible that a GMPLS message transitting a legacy node will
contain a flexi-grid label destined for or reported by a remote node.
For example, an LSP that transits links of different technologies
might record flexi-grid labels in a Record Route Object that is
subsequently passed to a legacy node. Such labels will not have any
impact on legacy implementations except as noted in the manageability
considerations in the next section.
5.2. Manageability Considerations
This document introduces no new elements for management. That is,
labels can continue to be used in the same way by the GMPLS protocols
and where those labels were treated as opaque quantities with local
or global significance, no change is needed to the management
systems.
However, this document introduces some changes to the nature of a
label that may require changes to management systems. Although
Section 3.2 of [RFC3471] makes clear that a label is of variable
length according to the type and that the type is supposed to be
known a priori by both ends of a link, a management system is not
guaranteed to be updated in step with upgrades or installations of
new flexi-grid functionality in the network.
But an implementation expecting a 32 bit lambda label would not fail
ungracefully because the first 32 bits follow the format of
[RFC6205]. It would look at theses labels and read but not recognize
the new grid type value. It would then give up trying to parse the
label and (presumably) the whole of the rest of the message.
Farrel et al. Expires March 2016 [Page 9]
draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label-05.txt September 2015
The management system can be upgraded in two steps:
- Firstly, systems that handle lambda labels as 32 bit quantities
need to be updated to handle the increase length (64 bits) of
labels as described in this document. These "unknown" 64 bit
labels could be displayed as opaque 64 bit quantities and still add
a lot of value for the operator (who might need to parse the label
by hand). However, an implementation that already supports lambda
labels as defined in [RFC6205] can safely continue to process the
first 32 bits and display the fields defined in RFC 6205 as before
leaving just the second 32 bits as opaque data.
- Second, a more sophisticated upgrade to a management system would
fully parse the flex-gird labels and display them field-by-field as
described in this document.
6. Implementation Status
[RFC Editor Note: Please remove this entire section prior to publication
as an RFC.]
This section records the status of known implementations of the
protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in RFC 6982
[RFC6982]. The description of implementations in this section is
intended to assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing
drafts to RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual
implementation here does not imply endorsement by the IETF.
Furthermore, no effort has been spent to verify the information
presented here that was supplied by IETF contributors. This is not
intended as, and must not be construed to be, a catalog of available
implementations or their features. Readers are advised to note that
other implementations may exist.
According to RFC 6982, "this will allow reviewers and working groups
to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of
running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation
and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature.
It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as
they see fit."
6.1. Centre Tecnologic de Telecomunicacions de Catalunya (CTTC)
Organization Responsible for the Implementation:
Centre Tecnologic de Telecomunicacions de Catalunya (CTTC)
Optical Networks and Systems Department
Farrel et al. Expires March 2016 [Page 10]
draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label-05.txt September 2015
Implementation Name and Details:
ADRENALINE testbed
http://networks.cttc.es/experimental-testbeds/
Brief Description:
Experimental testbed implementation of GMPLS/PCE control plane.
Level of Maturity:
Implemented as extensions to a mature GMLPS/PCE control plane.
It is limited to research / prototyping stages but it has been
used successfully for more than the last five years.
Coverage:
Support for the 64 bit label as described version 07 of this
document.
This affects mainly the implementation of RSVP-TE and PCEP
protocols:
- Generalized Label Support
- Suggested Label Support
- Upstream Label Support
- ERO Label Subobjects and Explicit Label Control
It is expected that this implementation will evolve to follow the
evolution of this document.
Licensing:
Proprietary
Implementation Experience:
Implementation of this document reports no issues.
General implementation experience has been reported in a number of
journal papers. Contact Ramon Casellas for more information or see
http://networks.cttc.es/publications/?
search=GMPLS&research_area=optical-networks-systems
Contact Information:
Ramon Casellas: ramon.casellas@cttc.es
Interoperability:
No report.
7. Security Considerations
[RFC6205] notes that the definition of a new label encoding does not
introduce any new security considerations to [RFC3471] and [RFC3473].
That statement applies equally to this document.
For a general discussion on MPLS and GMPLS-related security issues,
Farrel et al. Expires March 2016 [Page 11]
draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label-05.txt September 2015
see the MPLS/GMPLS security framework [RFC5920].
8. IANA Considerations
IANA maintains the "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Signaling Parameters" registry that contains several
subregistries.
8.1. Grid Subregistry
IANA is requested to allocate a new entry in this subregistry as
follows:
Value Grid Reference
----- ------------------------- ----------
3 ITU-T Flex [This.I-D]
8.2. DWDM Channel Spacing Subregistry
IANA is requested to allocate a new entry in this subregistry as
follows:
Value Channel Spacing (GHz) Reference
----- ------------------------- ----------
5 6.25 [This.I-D]
9. Acknowledgments
This work was supported in part by the FP-7 IDEALIST project under
grant agreement number 317999.
Very many thanks to Lou Berger for discussions of labels of more than
32 bits. Many thanks to Sergio Belotti and Pietro Vittorio Grandi
for their support of this work. Thanks to Gabriele Galimberti for
discussion of the size of the "m" field, and to Iftekhar Hussain for
discussion of composite labels. Robert Sparks, Carlos Pignataro, and
Paul Wouters provided review comments during IETF last call.
Special thanks to the Vancouver 2012 Pool Party for discussions and
rough consensus: Dieter Beller, Ramon Casellas, Daniele Ceccarelli,
Oscar Gonzalez de Dios, Iftekhar Hussain, Cyril Margaria, Lyndon Ong,
Fatai Zhang, and Adrian Farrel.
Farrel et al. Expires March 2016 [Page 12]
draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label-05.txt September 2015
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3471] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC
3471, January 2003.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-
Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473,
January 2003.
[RFC6205] Otani, T., and Li, D., "Generalized Labels for Lambda-
Switch-Capable (LSC) Label Switching Routers", RFC 6205,
October 2011.
[G.694.1] ITU-T Recommendation G.694.1 (revision 2), "Spectral grids
for WDM applications: DWDM frequency grid", February 2012.
10.2. Informative References
[RFC3945] Mannie, E., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October 2004.
[RFC4606] Mannie, E., and Papadimitriou, D., "Generalized Multi-
Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Extensions for
Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and Synchronous
Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Control", RFC 4606, August 2006.
[RFC5920] Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010.
[RFC6344] Bernstein, G., Caviglia, D., Rabbat, R., and van Helvoort,
H., "Operating Virtual Concatenation (VCAT) and the Link
Capacity Adjustment Scheme (LCAS) with Generalized Multi-
Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 6344, August 2011.
[RFC6982] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
Code: The Implementation Status Section", RFC 6982, July
2013.
[RFC Editor Note: This reference can be removed when Section 6 is
removed]
Farrel et al. Expires March 2016 [Page 13]
draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label-05.txt September 2015
[RFC7139] Zhang, F., Zhang, G., Belotti, S., Ceccarelli, D., and
Pithewan, K., "GMPLS Signaling Extensions for Control of
Evolving G.709 Optical Transport Networks", RFC 7139,
March 2014.
[G.671] ITU-T Recommendation G.671, "Transmission characteristics
of optical components and subsystems", 2009.
[G.694.2] ITU-T Recommendation G.694.2, "Spectral grids for WDM
applications: CWDM wavelength grid", December 2003.
[FLEXFWRK] O. Gonzalez de Dios, et al., "Framework and Requirements
for GMPLS based control of Flexi-grid DWDM networks",
draft-ogrcetal-ccamp-flexi-grid-fwk, work in progress.
[FLEXRSVP] Zhang, F., Gonzalez de Dios, O., and D. Ceccarelli,
"RSVP-TE Signaling Extensions in support of Flexible
Grid", draft-zhang-ccamp-flexible-grid-rsvp-te-ext, work
in progress.
Farrel et al. Expires March 2016 [Page 14]
draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label-05.txt September 2015
Appendix A. Flexi-Grid Example
Consider a fragment of an optical LSP between node A and node B using
the flexible grid. Suppose that the LSP on this hop is formed:
- using the ITU-T Flexi-Grid
- the nominal central frequency of the slot 193.05 THz
- the nominal central frequency granularity is 6.25 GHz
- the slot width is 50 GHz.
In this case the label representing the switchable quantity that is
the flexi-grid quantity is encoded as described in Section 4.1 with
the following parameter settings. The label can be used in signaling
or in management protocols to describe the LSP.
Grid = 3 : ITU-T Flexi-Grid
C.S. = 5 : 6.25 GHz nominal central frequency granularity
Identifier = local value indicating the laser in use
n = -8 :
Frequency (THz) = 193.1 THz + n * frequency granularity (THz)
193.05 (THz) = 193.1 (THz) + n * 0.00625 (THz)
n = (193.05-193.1)/0.00625 = -8
m = 4 :
Slot Width (GHz) = 12.5 GHz * m
50 (GHz) = 12.5 (GHz) * m
m = 50 / 12.5 = 4
Farrel et al. Expires March 2016 [Page 15]
draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label-05.txt September 2015
Authors' Addresses
Adrian Farrel
Old Dog Consulting
EMail: adrian@olddog.co.uk
Daniel King
Old Dog Consulting
EMail: daniel@olddog.co.uk
Yao Li
Nanjing University
EMail: wsliguotou@hotmail.com
Fatai Zhang
Huawei Technologies
EMail: zhangfatai@huawei.com
Contributors' Addresses
Zhang Fei
Huawei Technologies
EMail: zhangfei7@huawei.com
Ramon Casellas
CTTC
EMail: ramon.casellas@cttc.es
Farrel et al. Expires March 2016 [Page 16]
